Kumaresh Brambha v. Bani Das : (1999) 2 ILR(Cal) 195 : 1999 (2) HLR 424 : 1999 (4) RCR (Cri) 708 : (1999) CalCriLR 360 : (1999) 2 CalLJ 226 : (2000) 1 CLJ (Cri) 12 : 2000 (1) DMC 424 : 1999 (4) AICLR 17 : 2000 (1) CCR 55 : 1999 LRC Online 10 (Cal)
Section 125-Refusal of prayer with regard to maintainability of proceedings-Revision-Maintenance proceeding pending before the additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was in order and the said Magistrate was not in any way bound by the Family court proceeding-petition dismissed.
Held : . In view of the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the said Act, it is amply clear that the learned Magistrate will have no jurisdiction with regard to maintenance matters in the area where a Family Court has been established. In view of the discussions held hereinabove, it would be seen that the Family Court constituted for the city of Calcutta does not cover the jurisdiction of District of 24-Parganas (South). As the necessary corollary of the said proposition the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot deemed to be coming under the purview of Sub-clause (b) of Section 8 of the said Act. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate not being a Court where the Family Court for the city of Calcutta has been established was well within its bound to proceed with the maintenance case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (supra) squarely fits in the instant case and I respectfully agree with the proposition laid down in the said decision and held that the maintenance proceeding being case No. K.T.R. 100 of 1998 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was in order and the said learned Magistrate was not in any way bound by the Family Court proceeding.